project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mini-Mods > PR:Falklands General Discussion
23 Jul 2014, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:Falklands General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality Falklands modification.

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2012, 06:28 AM   #11
RazoR41

RazoR41's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrijandro View Post
Look here maybe you can use some of this

Argentinean Forces Design Plan


Is that mod released?

And i'll keep asking this

Bot Support?
RazoR41 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 09:59 PM   #12
Igwaith

Igwaith's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Hi! You have marked the Chinook for the Argies like Very Low Priority... and in fact, the argentinians use more chinook than the Brits
Where deployed:
7 Pumas SA330L (6 Army 1 PNA)
4 Chinook
11 UH-1H
10 A?rospatiale Alouette AI03
Sea Lynx 2
SH-3 Sea King 5

So I think that there should be more than one chopper for the argentinian side or at least make the Chinook a higher priority
Igwaith is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:53 AM   #13
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

I'm aware of this but technically, your wrong about the British having fewer Chinooks in the War.

In fact Four (4) RAF Chinook CH1s where deployed to the Falklands by the British. The problem was that three (3) of 4 them where lost when the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk before they where unloaded, along with also six (6) Wessex Helicopters, with one of the Chinooks surviving which was luckily airborne at the time the AC was hit.

Ingame I am simulating excatly the same thing, with the Atlantic Conveyor being destroyable, and when its destroyed, the Chinooks on its deck stop spawning. The Chinook spawn on the deck of the AC has a 10min, delayed spawn, with only a max of 3 that actually spawn, which is 1 less than the number it deployed in r/l. This means if you manage to keep the AC up for a minimum of 40mins, but more like 45 to 50mins after all the bits in between of getting players to take off the Chinooks etc so the next one can start to spawn, you can then get all the Chinooks off the deck and any that are lost will then start to be replaced, but as soon as the AC is destroyed, no more Chinooks. It is very possible to easily destroy the AC before even the first Chinook has spawned, its just up to the Argies to put there energy into sinking it while trying to avoid the Sea Harriers defending it, which is its only true defence and TBH, not a very good one as its very easy to slip past the sea harriers, drop your bombs and then run. So far every time I've done it in testing I haven't been shot down after dropping my bombs, even thou I've told the Brits I'm going to bomb it

As for the Argentinian Chinooks, 1 of the Army's Chinooks was destroyed on the ground by a harrier, which I'm guessing was in the initial bombing of Stanley Airport, before the Brits had landed at San Carlos, the other Army Chinook was captured at the end of the war and the two Air Force Chinooks escaped back to Argentina before the war ended and its not clear how much the Air Force Chinooks where really used.

But the main reason why its low priority, and probably should be removed from the list is because gameplay wise, I can't see how it can be used without unbalancing the map. I really don't want to give the Argies too much air transport, as they have a good foot hold on the map to start off with, and loads of ground transport, unlike the Brits who have pretty much none, not to mention gameplay wise, Ground Transport is better as Choppers seem to die very quickly on this map if they are spotted by any enemy jet/turboprop, normally the Chinooks coming off the AC get destroyed before they can drop there second set of crates and mainly from that damn A-1H hehe.


So yes, I'm aware of all of this and its all under control


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[R-DEV]Rhino is online now Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 04:41 PM   #14
Igwaith

Igwaith's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

2 Chinook from the army, and 2 from FAA.
So, I don't really know how it is the balance of the map... but, it should be Heli Transport instead of ground, in the war, none vehicle really enter in combat, trucks and light tanks (Panhard, Scimitar, Scorpion) wasn't used in combat or troop transport. So the troops, moved most of then on foot (Brits only have light helicopters... and 1 chinook) and the argentinians were all deployed on helicopter all over the island before the the brits landing, once the invasion began, the argentian troops doesn't move.
Maybe in little numbers through helicopters with the danger of the Harriers having the air supremacy...

So, in my opinion should be more Helicopter transport, and less ground vehicles transport...
Maybe 1 more Huey to argies, if you don't want a chinook.
Igwaith is offline
Last edited by Igwaith; 07-03-2012 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 05:24 PM   #15
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
2 Chinook from the army, and 2 from FAA.
As per what I said above, although I personally wouldn't ever refer to the Argentinian airforce as the FAA when dealing with the Falklands war as FAA also stands for Fleet Air Arm, which is the Royal Navy's air force which the Sea Harriers and many of the helicopters where part of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
none vehicle really enter in combat, trucks and light tanks (Panhard, Scimitar, Scorpion) wasn't used in combat or troop transport.
Well, a transport truck shouldn't be entering into a combat situation in r/l, its meant to behind the lines logistics, as per how the Argentinians used them during the war, mainly around Stanley but they where used to resupply other areas too.

As for the Scimitar and Scorpions, they did enter combat quite a bit tbh, mainly near the end of the campaign with the battle for Stanley, support troops moving up the mountains using there NV sights, and also there was one occasion where a Scimitars and Scorpions did engage a Panhard outside of Stanley which was the only Armour vs Armour engagement of the war: Panhard AML - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
During the Battle of Wireless Ridge the only armour versus armour engagement of the war was fought when these units encountered FV101 Scorpions and FV107 Scimitars of the Blues and Royals. The AML-90s were abandoned in Stanley after the conflict ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
So the troops, moved most of then on foot (Brits only have light helicopters... and 1 chinook) and the argentinians were all deployed on helicopter all over the island before the the brits landing, once the invasion began, the argentian troops doesn't move.
Maybe in little numbers through helicopters with the danger of the Harriers having the air supremacy...
The only reason why the Brits where forced to move all there troops on foot was due to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor (AC), which resulted in the loss of most of the Chinook and Wessex Helicopters. The orignal plan was to fly the troops with these helis to Stanley but because of the loss of the AC, they where forced to walk. As I said above, I'm simulating this exact same situation, only with the loss of the AC and as a result, the Chinook spawn being a variable which is up for the Argeis to destroy. If the Argies do destroy the AC, then the Brits are forced to walk, how ever if they don't, they then slowly get Chinook support to help them move about.

If the Argie jets get there act together they can easily take out the AC before any of the Chinooks spawn, they just need to commit all of there bombers to bombing it at the start of the round and then 10mins into the game, they get there Anti-Ship jet which can almost take it out on its own, very easily although by the time that spawns is the same time the first Chinook spawns, providing the AC hasn't already been destroyed.

Also just to note, the British had all Light, Medium and Heavy Lift Helicopters during the war, although the Chinook is the only heavy chopper they had, the Lynx, Scout and Gazelle are all Light/Scout choppers, the Wessex and Sea King are both Medium Lift Choppers and the Chinook is classed as a Heavy Lift Chopper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
So, in my opinion should be more Helicopter transport, and less ground vehicles transport...
Maybe 1 more Huey to argies, if you don't want a chinook.
The Argies already have two Bell UH-1H Iroquois (note, not a Huey) on the map, but in one spawn with a max of 2 with a 10min spawn time (not delayed) so if the Argentinians can keep there first Huey alive, they can get a Max of two up in the air 10mins after the first one takes off.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[R-DEV]Rhino is online now Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 07:36 PM   #16
Igwaith

Igwaith's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

So, arround 10 mins Brits can have the Wessex and the Chinook, and the Argies 2 Bell? (note, Bell UH-1H Iroquois also know as "Huey", the original designation HU-1 led to this nickname"). If this is that way, isn't that bad, 2 helicopter on each side at 10 min?. I didn't know that, sorry.
Gettin in a discution about of transport helicopter is pointless. I will keep saying that Brits had to walk all over the island and the Argies troops were deployed by Helicopters,.
But is true that the Brits haven't any deploy spot on the island so it maybe not too realistic, but balance the gameplay

I know that trucks shouldn't enter in combat, I was trying to say that the trucks didn't were used for transport arround the island, neither resupply. (But again if it is for game porpuse is ok).
Remember my english is not so good, so please try to get an idea of what I mean

I don't agree with Armour vs Armour battle. That didn't happend, the Panhard crew had a 33% of casualtys during the war fighting like infantry on Puerto Argentino "Stanley". But they never attack or get attacked by any brit light tank . Most of the Unit get destroyed by RN artillery, the other were abandoned because the inviability of terrain. (Really none veteran of the "Escuadron de Exploracion Caballeria Blindada 10" never spoke in any way of a encounter of that type.)

But if the Argies get the LVTP-7 could be interesting in game parametres.

So I may to seem criticism, but I really love the work you are doing. It's always with the best intention, sometimes I can get misunderstood but again, is my difficulty to express me in english.
Igwaith is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 12:05 AM   #17
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
So, arround 10 mins Brits can have the Wessex and the Chinook, and the Argies 2 Bell? (note, Bell UH-1H Iroquois also know as "Huey", the original designation HU-1 led to this nickname"). If this is that way, isn't that bad, 2 helicopter on each side at 10 min?. I didn't know that, sorry.
Well technically the Brits would have 2 Wessex and 1 Chinook (providing AC hasn't been destroyed) 10mins into the game, providing the first Wessex heli had taken off, but on top of that the Brit choppers has a long way to fly to and from the carrier/AC (to resupply its crates) which really undermines their resupply ability (might give them a chopper supply only, no repair, point at San Carlos but need to do some testing on that as just getting from the carrier too the shore is a very long time and risky over the open water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
I don't agree with Armour vs Armour battle. That didn't happend, the Panhard crew had a 33% of casualtys during the war fighting like infantry on Puerto Argentino "Stanley". But they never attack or get attacked by any brit light tank . Most of the Unit get destroyed by RN artillery, the other were abandoned because the inviability of terrain. (Really none veteran of the "Escuadron de Exploracion Caballeria Blindada 10" never spoke in any way of a encounter of that type.)
Just quoting what it says on the Wiki which its source is from this book: Argentine Forces in the Falklands - Nicholas Van Der Bijl - Google Books

If you have any references which state otherwise it would be good to see them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
But if the Argies get the LVTP-7 could be interesting in game parametres.
The LVTP-7 was only used in the initial invasion of the Falklands and went home right after it: Assault Amphibious Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Twenty U.S.-built LVTP-7s were used by Argentina during the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands with all of them returning to the Argentine mainland before the war ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igwaith View Post
So I may to seem criticism, but I really love the work you are doing. It's always with the best intention, sometimes I can get misunderstood but again, is my difficulty to express me in english.
Cheers and no worries, I am looking into detail on all the historical data I have to hand and using as much of it as possible while trying to keep the map/mini-mod balanced and fun


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[R-DEV]Rhino is online now Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 09:54 AM   #18
pedrooo14
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

I see you put M20 to Argentinian AT kit. But they use Instalaza M65 (there is a lot of pictures with that weapon)
pedrooo14 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 08:29 PM   #19
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by pedrooo14 View Post
I see you put M20 to Argentinian AT kit. But they use Instalaza M65 (there is a lot of pictures with that weapon)
It looks like you might be right there and from what we can tell, the M65 is a Spanish modernised version of the M20 Super Bazooka: Weapon

Quote:
The M65 is a Spanish development of the M20 Super Bazooka. The launcher is modernized and slightly longer. An optical sight is fitted which is also illuminated for night use. A range of more capable ammunition is used in this weapon. These rounds have a longer range and more effective warheads. The M65 can be identified by the bar below the launch tube.
For now we will be using the M20 since we have one from PR:V but will put it in the long term plans to convert it into an M65, but this will be very low priority task since there isn't much difference between them.

Although tbh, the M20/M65 isn't really a very good "Light Anti-Tank" weapon for the Argentinians as we have got it down for, got the M67 set for the Argentines long term Heavy Anti-Tank weapon. Really we are looking for a one shot, disposable weapon for that role but it doesn't look like the Argentinians had anything like that during the Falklands war.

Cheers

EDIT: actually looking at this again, from what we can tell the Argentinians seem to have used both the M20 and M65 during this war, and seeing as we already have an M20 model, and its a better candidate as a light anti-tank weapon, since the M65 is more powerful etc, simplest thing is just to stick with the M20 we feel




Note no bar below the tube and a solid rear flare, where the M65 has a cage type flare:



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[R-DEV]Rhino is online now
Last edited by [R-DEV]Rhino; 09-12-2012 at 09:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 11:35 PM   #20
pedrooo14
Default Re: PR:BF2 - Falklands Design Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
It looks like you might be right there and from what we can tell, the M65 is a Spanish modernised version of the M20 Super Bazooka: Weapon



For now we will be using the M20 since we have one from PR:V but will put it in the long term plans to convert it into an M65, but this will be very low priority task since there isn't much difference between them.

Although tbh, the M20/M65 isn't really a very good "Light Anti-Tank" weapon for the Argentinians as we have got it down for, got the M67 set for the Argentines long term Heavy Anti-Tank weapon. Really we are looking for a one shot, disposable weapon for that role but it doesn't look like the Argentinians had anything like that during the Falklands war.

Cheers

EDIT: actually looking at this again, from what we can tell the Argentinians seem to have used both the M20 and M65 during this war, and seeing as we already have an M20 model, and its a better candidate as a light anti-tank weapon, since the M65 is more powerful etc, simplest thing is just to stick with the M20 we feel




Note no bar below the tube and a solid rear flare, where the M65 has a cage type flare:


Thanks for clear my doubt. I never hear of m20 in Malvinas/Falklands, but i read many anecdotes (of diferents units, like commandos or regular infantry) of the use of Instalaza 88,9mm in response for Milan rocket launcher. M65 (or at least, the version used in the conflict) had no equipment for night combat. Those m20 were probably just a few.

About the power or the efficiency, i really got 0 technical knowledge. I just telling what i read on books.
Cheers.
pedrooo14 is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
design, falklands, outdated, plan, prbf2
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2014, Project Reality.